This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and I am working it out. I am an employee of Antonia Mulvey (who I am setting up the page for) and the name of her NGO is Legal Action Worldwide which is why I chose the username. I could change that username if you wish.
Regarding the other edits I did, no I am not being paid for those changes. Ian Carroll is my step father, Geraldine Doogue is my mother and Peter Harvey is my father-in-law. So I edited the pages for accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LegalActionWiki (talk • contribs) 07:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
@LegalActionWiki: If that is the case, you are editing in violation of Wikipedia's Terms of Use and you need to do the following before continuing to edit:
Agree to use the edit request process for articles with which you have a conflict of interest, rather than editing them directly; this includes articles on family members as well as your employer.
If you do not comply with Wikipedia's rules, your account is liable to be blocked from editing altogether. Yunshui雲水 09:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Request for Help / Guidance
Hi Yunshui,
I came across your name on the Wikipedia:Editor Assistance page and am wondering if you be so kind to offer guidance and help with a dispute myself and several other editors are having. The page in question is the band Veridia. We are trying to update the page to correct their musical "genre/label" and the edits are constantly being reverted by a top-level editor 'Walter Görlitz'. We have many references to back up our claims including an article with direct quotes from the band. We have a closed RFC that didn't resolve the dispute and several other discussions revolving around this topic. As you know you can see these very lengthy discussions on the Talk Page. I raised the issue in the WIkipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring forum but was correctly shown that no violation occurred based on the 3RR rule. I admit that I am very new to Wikipedia and am still trying to learn but I feel that no amount of references will ever be accepted by the top-level editor. I just want this page to be accurate/current but am struggling. I would greatly appreciate any assistance you are willing to give me.
I am very happy to provide additional details, reference articles, examples of other pages where this edit was allowed, etc.
Thank you very much for your time and for reading this.
Mike MJC8104 (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@MJC8104: I'd forgotten that the Editor Assistance page even existed... Well, although at a first glance it looks as though Walter Görlitz is fighting a losing corner here - the RFC, closed a few months ago, established that there is not a consensus for including the Christian rock genre - before I take any action or even offer an opinion I have to ask: what is your relationship to the band? You've never edited on any other topic, and few minutes of Google searching suggests that you are more than just a random fan; if you have a conflict of interest then you need to disclose it before we can proceed any further. Yunshui雲水 09:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
@Yunshui: Thank you very much for responding. You are correct about not being just a random fan. I've been following them since their inception and have been fortunate to hang out with them on occasion even helping them set up equipment at two shows. I do want to clarify that I do not work for the band but help where I can. To be completely up front and honest I overheard one of the band members state, on an off-handed comment, that their Wiki page was not complete, up to date or accurate. That is around the time I created an account to see what I could do to help since, from my understanding, they aren't supposed to update their own page. I started updating their page/site including additional pages for their album and single without their knowledge. I figured I could help since I've been working as an IT Admin for over 20 years now and want to gain some "coding" experience.
I found satisfaction editing their page as I felt like I was helping the band expand their internet presence. I do have intentions on helping edit a few other band pages as well (Disciple, Icon for Hire and Tourniquet are a few examples) but wanted to use this experience for learning Wikipedia before I start helping edit other, more established, pages. Mike MJC8104 (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
@MJC8104: Okay, being a personal acquaintance of the band does muddy the waters a bit, since it creates a conflict of interest (as a friend of the band, you naturally want their views on their musical genre to be prioritised, but as a Wikipedia editor, you want the article to reflect what other people have said about them). Walter Görlitz has a point in that we - speaking in Wikipedia's voice - don't really care what the band want to be known as; if reliable sources have dubbed them "Christian rock" then we should use that term to describe them. My personal take, especially considering there's already been an RFC on the matter, is that the infobox and lead ought to use the term "alternative rock" (since there is consensus for that, but no consensus for "Christian rock"), but that the Style section should continue to reflect the fact that many classify them as Christian rock; a mention of this could also be made in the lead; for example:
Veridia, often stylized in all capital letters as VERIDIA, is an American alternative rock band from Nashville, Tennessee. Formed in 2013, the group now consists of Deena Jakoub (vocals), Brandon Brown (guitar), and Kyle Levy (drums). The band's music is often classified as Christian rock, although the band themselves reject this label.
or something of that ilk.
However, Editor Assistance is not dispute resolution, and that looks like the area you actually need help with. My advice would be: disclose your conflict of interest (adding the following to the top of the article talkpage is probably the best way to do this: {{Connected contributor| User1 = MJC8104| U1-EH = yes | U1-declared = yes}}), make another attempt to discuss this with Walter Görlitz, and if the two of you cannot achieve a satisfactory resolution, consider disengaging; at the end of the day, the presence or absence of a word on an internet encyclopedia is not a very big deal. Yunshui雲水 09:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
@Yunshui: Everything you have said makes complete sense, and I will update the talk page as you suggest. I completely understand that Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not what the subject matter wants. This leads to another question that I have that will help me in this case and going forward with future edits. Is there a time limit on sources to be considered relevant? This is one question that I believe I have asked others, in the talk page, and am still confused about any rules governing older (out dated) sources. From my perspective I would think newer sources would override content from older sources, or would the content page, maybe in the style section, state something like "previously", or "in the past" referencing the older sources? I am grateful for your help and am not asking you to resolve this dispute. I will definitely work peacefully with the other editors to come to a resolution and if not then disengage for a while. I'm trying to gain a better grasp of the rules governing sources and edits and you have been the most helpful so far. MJC8104 (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
The age of sources is irrelevant; lots of stuff here is sourced to stuff from the 1800s or even earlier. We don't consider sources to go out of date, but they can be superseded (for example, if a newspaper publishes a retraction of a story, or if new research disproves a scientific paper). However, that doesn't always mean we'll change the article to solely reflect the latest sources; in many such cases the new information is added to what's already there (we don't remove all mention of phlogiston just because it's been disproved, for example). Ultimately it comes down to a case-by-case basis, with the community being the arbiter of what is and isn't a suitable source. Yunshui雲水 07:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you!!!! I definitely understand and am now clear about sources and ages of sources. Again I thank you very much for your assistance. MJC8104 (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Yunshui. Any idea as to what's going on at User:192.104.181.246/sandbox? IP 192.104.181.246 appears to be being used to edit the mainspace, but Bpearlmuhlenberg only seems to be editing in the IP's username space. Is it possible that Bpearlmuhlenberg is just unaware that they have there own user sandbox? Assuming good faith, but the quite a bit of the content in that sandbox appears to just be random musings, but some might be an attempt to improve Manifesto of the Communist Party. Either way it's not clear why the IP's username space is being used for such a thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
The IP is registered to Muhlenberg College, so I suspect the edits being made from it are from multiple students. I suggest dropping Bpearlmuhlenberg a note on their talkpage, asking them what exactly they are doing - or, since I've just pinged them, they are welcome to respond here. Yunshui雲水 07:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. I'll add a message to the Bpearlmuhlenberg's user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.
Technical news
Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.
I believe that the Incineroar AfD assessment of "keep" was ill-judged and it merited a relist, not a close as keep. Both Sergecross and TTN believed that the article merited a redirect, not a keep. Of the keep votes, 3 of them were WP:JUSTAVOTE and the remaining two involved very shaky sources from unreliable websites, which were disputed by both Sergecross and myself. I still don't believe the article saw significant improvement worthy of WP:HEY, or will be able to stand on its own. I am hoping you will be able to reverse the close and relist it instead.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. I was actually going to pop in to say something similar. I was wondering if you were open to possibly relisting? I feel like many of the Keep votes were simply WP:ITSNOTABLE stances. They never really said anything that would show that they really even understand our concept of notability, let alone that the subject meets it. Sergecross73msg me 12:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Normally I'd point you in the direction of deletion review for this sort of thing, but re-reading the discussion... well, it's somewhat borderline. I think I'd probably still close it the same way, but there's no harm in allowing it to run a little longer. I will relist it so that it can run for another week. Yunshui雲水 13:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate it. I’ll notify the WikiProject in hopes of getting some more participation as well. Sergecross73msg me 13:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Sensei, this is going to be one of the most controversial disputes
The reason for this is that Vietnam has a long history of Chinese influence and despite the sources I had added and the similarities, Simeon just revert my edits but since you are an expert in martial arts, give your thoughts on it. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 10:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Not controversial at all. There's no reason not to have an article on Vietnamese swordsmanship if it's a notable subject, but lumping it in with the Chinese systems from which it originated does a disservice to both. Now if you can produce a bunch of articles which are about "Chinese and Vietnamese swordsmanship" as a concept, there might be some merit in the idea of a joint article, but as it is, all the sources I can see treat them as separate subjects. Simeon is in the right, here. Yunshui雲水 10:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I do know that Chinese brought the gun and the main to Vietnam. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Hiraizumi Kiyoshi
Hello! Your submission of Hiraizumi Kiyoshi at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not seeing what input is needed from me here; this appears to be a dispute over wording that was not in my original version of the hook. Yunshui雲水 10:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Assuming that you are not a sock of User:J-Man11, there's no reason you can't recreate the article. Yunshui雲水 10:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Ok thank you, I'm new and I saw the message, so I wasn't sure what was the deal thank you.. Ech25 (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Forgot?
Hi, i think you forgot to delete other articles listed on this AfD. I bundle some articles and started AfD and i think there is consensus to delete all. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
User:હમઝા ઘાંચી has asked for a deletion review of Bapunagar Darpan. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 03:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I observed you closed this delete at LitwareHR at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LitwareHR despite miminal participation and the scummering of the good faith work of a major Wikipedia Foundation's work as fictitious software and the last !vote suggesting a possible merge. Can I please request a WP:REFUND to draft or a user space. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you would think that a sample Microsoft application constitutes a major Wikipedia Foundation work, nor why you would assume this apparently non-existent connection to the Foundation makes a topic automatically notable, but fair enough, if you want to work on it, I'll restore it to User:Djm-leighpark/LitewareHR. Yunshui雲水 09:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't this have been closed as soft delete/WP:REFUND applies? Literally the bot itself suggested it at the end with a note, not to mention that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayoora Nritham, that had the same situation and was next to this in the March 11 AfD log got closed differently. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you're correct. My bad; I'll go and deal with it now. Yunshui雲水 07:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.
Miscellaneous
The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Not happy with the changes to the aikido article. Seems very style specific and opinionated especially with regards to competition. The takamasu principle is very specific to later evolution of Ueshiba and has nothing to do with other styles. Definately not neutral as was claimed in the edit summary. Don't want to repeat my revert especially since a reference was added but still.PRehse (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
(talk page watcher)(Non-administrator comment)@PRehse: The other editor is a really new editor who might be unfamiliar with Wikipedia in general, but they also state they’re an Aikido teacher and PhD, which also means they’re also probably unfamiliar with WP:EXPERT and WP:CON. So, perhaps the best way to approach this is to avoid WP:BITE and try to explain this by informing them about WP:WPMA and inviting them to participate in that; explain your concerns about the changes they’ve made in terms of the policies and guidelines you theyink are applicable. Trying to explain WP:UNDUE can sometimes be hard, but perhaps there’s a way to do so that makes them feel involved instead of rebuffed. If some of their changes are OK, then focusing on the good things while pointing out the bad things might help them feel involved. If it’s all no good and needs to go, then you should feel OK to revert back per WP:STATUSQUO as necessary (at least once) regardless of whether sources are provided and then suggesting WP:BRD to the other person. Of course, you don’t need to revert to start a discussion per BRD; you can just start a discussion and invite the other editor as well as any others who might be interested in it to join in. As long as, you frame things civilly and discuss content, doing so should not be a problem. Whatever you decide to do, the other editor response will largely determine any further efforts you or anyone else makes. If they follow WP:DR, things will eventually be sorted out with them actively engaged in the process; if not, things will also eventually be sorted out, but they might not be around to see so. That, however, is their choice. I know pretty much nothing about Aikido, but the edit summary they left kinda indicates an unfamiliarity with Wikipedia that might possibly be a concern depending upon how they proceed from hereon. I’m sure you probably know most of the above already, but perhaps hearing it from another sort of backs up what you might already be thinking. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to change “they” to “think”. — 12:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)]
Thanks for the reply and yes I did need to hear it from somewhere else. The WP:EXPERT and WP:CON is what got my hackels up. I so wanted to go the route of me too with spades and fear that if I engaged I would go to the dark side.PRehse (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Some of those additions are worth retaining - the expansion of basic principles is valid, I think - but I've removed some of the more speculative exposition, and the spurious "no competition" claim. Yunshui雲水 07:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I have an off-wiki evidence for a paid editor, how can I send it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.154.68.234 (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment)(talk page watcher) Hi IP 196.154.68.234. "Paid editing" is not prohibited per se, but undisclosed paid editing is a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's wmf:Terms of Use as explained in Wikipedia:Paid-contributions disclosure. If you have real world knowledge of such a thing, you need to be very careful about posting any of what you know on Wikipedia since doing so may be considered a violation of WP:OUTING; you should also be very careful in directly contacting and accusing another editor of such a thing, even outside of Wikipedia, since that might be considered a violation of WP:OWH. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 11#Response to the Wikimedia Foundation statement on paid editing and outing for some more specific information on this type of thing.If you have legitimate concerns about another editor that involves things you may personally know, the best way to try and seek help is going to be via email. If you register for an account (or if you've already got an registered account) and you activate your email feature, you will be able to send an email to an administrator and discuss things with them off of Wikipedia. If you don't wish to register for an account or don't wish to go on record with the account that you normally use, then your best bet might be to try WP:PAID#Reporting undisclosed paid editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I am happy to be emailed with evidence if you have genuine concerns about undisclosed paid editing, but I would second Marchjuly's comments above: please do not post any identifying evidence on Wikipedia. Yunshui雲水 10:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Boro people
@Yunshui: it had to happen, I guess—a partial block in nearly sixteen years of editing! I am sorry it happened, but I think I deserved it. Thank you for resolving the issue. Chaipau (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I've lifted the block, I no longer see any reason for it. To be honest, had I had the time to do a full investigation prior to issuing the partial block yesterday I probably wouldn't have blocked your account at all, so my apologies for the blot on your ledger. Yunshui雲水 09:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I am humbled. Thank you Chaipau (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Article Creation
Hi mate,
A while ago gave an attempt to create an article for Akshara Singh but it seems that someone in the past had already created the article and got deleted due no significance. There is draft as well with the same name. Not sure and confused how to create one. Please guide me.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS☣ 14:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Given that a draft already exists, your best option is to work on the page at Draft:Akshara Singh until it's ready for mainspace. At that point, you'll need to get an admin to move it, since the mainspace title is protected from recreation - if you submit the draft via articles for creation then someone will sort that bit out for you. Yunshui雲水 14:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Yunshui, thank you for your timely response. Sorry to bother you further, but you mention "Wikipedia has dispute resolution processes for dealing with issues like this and "you would be best advised to make use of them". I have read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and mostly it does not seem to apply to this situation (and technically is not a mechanism, although I have followed the guidelines, discussion , with other editor, taking a break from editing, etc). I have also done what I think to be due diligence in searching for and reading other materials I am adding content that can easily be checked, then being accused of WP:Original research. My content can be easily verified, in most cases (some of the sources are less readily available), then having reference-cited content removed. Despite having edited for about a dozen years, I have not previously run into any problems such as this. Is there or are there other dispute resolution mechanisms which you would be kind enough to recommend? Gratefully,
Dcattell (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
This is not a content dispute, other than Hzh's removal of referenced material -- Hzh doesn't actually do content with me, just name-dropping of WP policy. Also, when you closed the request for administrative help, it left behind a template to some sort of message board, so I am pursuing help there. So, thanks for that, cheers Dcattell (talk)
And by the way, in case you stopped watching my talk page User:Hzh left you a message there (it's not to me).
You think the content should be written the way you wrote it, Hzh does not - that's a content dispute, pure and simple. A simple third opinion or dispute resolution request could have cleaned it up easily, but I see that you have instead decided to take the nuclear option and go directly to WP:ANI. Well, good luck with that... Yunshui雲水 08:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, you've been helpful. I hope there is not a next time, but if there is I'll try third opinion or dispute resolution. The people at the ANI all seem nice, although one or two of them seem like they may be a bit eccentric, or even grumpy. Dcattell (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
ygm
Some interesting stuff in your inbox. GSS💬 06:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Sir, I am not sure if this is the right place to post here but GSS's accusations are not just baseless, he has a long tendency of lashing out at other editors. Please just look at his talkpage and there are numerous messages from other editors that were either ignored or received a rude response from GSS. I have to say he also lacks ethics[1].
Why was this page deleted?
I spent hours on this page researching and making it, when I saw it was up for proposed deletion I constantly tried to find out why but no one would talk to me. Nobody replied to any of my messages and now it’s gone. It was a sourced article with 10 sources, was accurate and as detailed as it could be. I said multiple times that next season I would continue to update and improve the page as there would be far more content as Niang would be part of Thistle’s first team. I’m sorry if I sound frustrated it’s just no responses has for increasing frustrating now the article is delete and I spent time on it. Thanks Partickthistle123 (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mouhamed Niang showed a sound, policy-based consensus to delete. If you think I made a mistake in assessing this consensus, you can dispute the close at Deletion Review, but I would not expect such a challenge to be successful - the outcome was pretty clear. If at some point he does meet the criteria at WP:NFOOTY, you are welcome to recreate the page (I or another admin would be happy to restore the deleted content for you as a draft under those circumstances), but right now, the community has established that Mouhamed Niang doesn't meet the inclusion requirements. This isn't a comment on the quality of your work, merely on the notability of the subject. Yunshui雲水 07:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to ask you something
@Yunshui:I'm wondering if I can create "1 Field Engineer Squadron (United Kingdom)" because I noticed you deleted it because a user created the page. If there are any other reasons you deleted it then just let me know. Unless otherwise specified, I will go ahead with the creation of the article. LucasA04 (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@LucasA04: The only reason that article was deleted was that it was created by a sockpuppet; if you want to recreate it, you can. However, there's an attribution problem with the sandbox version you've created. While you have correctly attributed the article at military.wikia, which is available under CC-BY-SA (and therefore you can copy content from there to Wikipedia with attribution, no problem), the version of the article there appears to have been copied without attribution from the deleted article here at Wikipedia. The actual creator of the text was User:MHist01, here on Wikipedia, and they have not been correctly attributed in your initial edit. Thus, technically speaking, your sandbox is a copyright violation. You weren't to know this (you can't see the deleted article here so you wouldn't have known it was the same) and I am not convinced that it's a problem, but it may be worth adding a note or template to your sandbox article's talkpage to clarify the origin of the text. Yunshui雲水 06:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@Yunshui: I was just keeping it there so I could just submit it for review and IIRC I said I copied it directly from the wikia in my edit summary. I also pasted it there instead of creating it because I wanted to check with you all was good. I have cleared my sandbox regardless and have stored it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LucasA04/1_Field_Engineer_Squadron_(United_Kingdom), and there should be no other versions of that article, with that name, under my name. Also, can you tell me what that template is called or how to make one that says that it was copied from somewhere else an attribute template?
{{Text release}} is the template that you need for the talkpage. Yunshui雲水 08:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Yunshui. I hope you and your family/friends are doing well in the midst of everything that’s going on right now. I was wondering if you’d mind taking a look at this. The back and forth at the beginning of the thread is not nice, but I’m more interested in having someone uninvolved taking a look at the page move. The editor who moved it is currently under block and the article is currently at AFD; so, I didn’t want to revert off the cuff and just add more drama to those things. Even so, it was an undiscussed page move that was challenged. Perhaps it would be best to leave things as they are until the AFD is closed? — Marchjuly (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, Bonmot hasn't edited since the 22nd, and the page is still at AFD; I'd say the best course of action would be let the AFD play out. It's a bad idea to move articles while they are at AFD anyway. Wu wei is as good an editing strategy as any... Yunshui雲水 07:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. Bonmot is currently blocked and his last unblock request was declined; so, that probably explains his inactivity. Bonmot was also the one who moved the page after it ended up at AfD; it was subsequently moved back by another editor, but Bonmot moved it again. Wu wei sounds like the best thing to do here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Block seems to have expired already. Yunshui雲水 10:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Mail
Hello, Yunshui. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
That is literally the definition of block evasion, yes. Sockblocked indefinitely. Yunshui雲水 21:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
If I see other uses doing this, should I report them to you? Rodrigo Valequez(🗣) 06:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm happy to look into any instances you find, but (even during lockdown!) I'm not online 24/7 - WP:SPI is the best place to make such reports. (If you've not used it before, check out my very easy guide for first-timers.) Yunshui雲水 06:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
You might be interested in this
Salty Dog Paddle has returned, by a new editor. I recall recently seeing someone's freelancer where this was a review but can't recall who it was now. For reference since it's been so long see here for more history. ;) Praxidicae (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Whitewashing on Robert B. Asher and the creation of an article on an obscure academic both ring paid editing alarm bells (academics are a popular target for paid editing scammers, as you probably know) - let's see how they respond to your talkpage message... Yunshui雲水 14:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm guessing with "I'm not paid!!! I just am interested in this subject!" Praxidicae (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Also
Hello, Yunshui. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I have just looked at the biography, and suspect that the current editor by usage, user name and method of editing is a COI case - you have any thoughts ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Bar_(neuroscientist) - please feel free to revert my revert if you have a differing opinion - I do hope its not an inconvenience on your time - thanks either way JarrahTree 09:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Certainly looks likely. At this point, I think we need to see what they have to say for themselves. The likelihood of a brand new user with that username straight away hitting an article that has been plagued by SPAs purely by coincidence is vanishingly small, but I'm curious to see what disclosure they produce. Have watchlisted both the article and the user talkpage. Yunshui雲水 09:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for that - there does seem to be a pond full of quackingducks in the edit history... Appreciate your time on that JarrahTree 09:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Shilpa Shetty filmography
Hello mate. Hope you are doing fine. I have nominated Shilpa Shetty filmography for FL. As of now all issues have been addressed. Still can you please take a look and support (if it's good to go) for FL.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS☣ 06:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Appreciate the request, but neither featured lists nor filmographies are areas of expertise for me, so I'll leave it to those with more experience to review. Yunshui雲水 09:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello Yunshui. For Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chrisvacc, you reviewed it and stated: CU is Inconclusive. Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. May I know who, or which group of users, is supposed to do the behavioural evaluation? Thanks. starship.paint (talk) 06:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
That's down to whichever admin eventually closes the SPI. Basically there's nothing useful to be gleaned from the CU results, so whoever sorts out the actual close is going to have to disregard them and look at the behaviour alone. Yunshui雲水 09:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Yunshui. You deleted an article with the same name per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dujuan Thomas (2nd nomination), and this one does seem to be about the same person. I'm not sure whether it would be considered an improvement over the one that was deleted, but it's ended back at AfD again so maybe it's not eligible for speedy deletion per WP:G4.
In addition, there may be other issues as well in that the creator of the recreation appears to be a relatively new account, but doesn't appear to be a total newbie so to speak. That account was created not too long after Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abbycarroll was indeffed. The account was created in October 2019, but went unused until yesterday when it appeared to start working on a new article about Thomas. This seems quite a bit WP:DUCKy to me and a new SPI has already been started by someone else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks; the content was identical to the deleted version so I have done the necessary... Yunshui雲水 11:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at this. There’s also user:Ty012345/sandbox as well, but that’s a just a user sandbox draft. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, could you please review my page. It is from Turkish Wikipedia. Thank You!Yiğitcank (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Looks okay at first glance, but you need to address the following issues:
Firstly, if you translated this from the equivalent article at tr-wiki, then you're committing a copyright violation by posting it here without attribution. You need to add the {{Translated page}} template to the talkpage.
The sources look superficially okay, but I can't read Turkish so can't really assess them. Several of them look to be the same sources reused, so you should combine them using the multiple citations process.
Most of the sources are missing parameters.
It would be a good idea to wikilink some of the terms in the text (His Master's Voice, for instance).
Out of curiosity, what prompted you to ask me for a review? I have no real history of AfC reviewing; I do it now and again but there are many other more active editors in that field. Yunshui雲水 14:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Your UTRS Account
You have no wikis in which you meet the requirements for UTRS. Your account has been removed and you will be required to reregister once you meet the requirements. If you are blocked on any wiki that UTRS uses, please resolve that before registering agian also. -- DQB (owner / report) 09:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Ah, the wonders of technology... Yunshui雲水 09:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Yunshui, this is now fixed, it was a bug. Apologies. -- Amanda(aka DQ) 15:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
No apologies necessary; your hard work on the UTRS interface is very much appreciated! Yunshui雲水 20:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Your UTRS Account
You have no wikis in which you meet the requirements for UTRS. Your account has been removed and you will be required to reregister once you meet the requirements. If you are blocked on any wiki that UTRS uses, please resolve that before registering agian also. -- DQB (owner / report) 20:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Heh. DeltaQuad, looks as though it did it again. No rush for a solution; I'll be pretty much out of the picture until Tuesday now anyway. Yunshui雲水 20:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Yunshui, Does anyone realize that DeltaQuadBot has a typo? "again" not "agian". 3125ATalk!Edits! 12:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice
Hi Yunshui, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.
Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.
To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!
Can you please rev-del this, this and block the IP responsible? Thanks. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 22:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of User:SnøhettaAS block please regarding a role account sockpuppet you blocked. I'm asking for an unblock and a probationary period of at least 120 days. EllenCT (talk) 08:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Miscellaneous
Hello! Your submission of Hiraizumi Kiyoshi at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Arbitration
You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:John from Idegon#SurVision Magazine. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversight changes
